Transcripts of the Attorney General's Initiative on DNA Laboratory Backlogs (AGID-LAB) Working Group

March 4, 2002, Meeting

NIJ BACKLOG REDUCTION PROGRAMS

MR. SCHMITT: Let me just give a little update on the order of march here. John Paul has a presentation he's going to make and what we're going to do is combine your break and the Q & A of this panel in one even session. And so we'll get us back on track.

So I invite you to get a beverage and a cooking while you're listening to John Paul or during the questioning and then make a trip down the hall if you need to and then we'll just go right into the next kind of round table discussion where we will build on the comments that Paul and David and CC have given us here.

MR. JOHN PAUL JONES: All right. I kind of figured I would be running a little short on time here. So I'm going to zip through this.

First off, my name is John Paul Jones. And for those of you who haven't - I haven't had the pleasure to meet, I'll answer two questions for you real quickly. One, I'm not related to the famous Admiral in the Navy, John Paul Jones, nor the base player of Led Zeppelin.

(Laughter.)

MR. JOHN PAUL JONES: I'll take care of that right away.

Okay. What I'm here to talk to you about today is NIJ's DNA backlog reduction programs, which started - the real DNA backlog reduction programs really started in our fiscal year of 2000. Granted we had some DNA lab improvement programs that occurred before that. But we're going to stick with the backlog programs that started in 2000 and progressed forward.

So I'm going to provide a status update on our fiscal year 2000 and 2001 convicted offender DNA backlog reduction program. The status of our fiscal year 2001 no-suspect casework program, which several folks here have submitted applications for, I'm going to give you some projections for what we expect to happen in fiscal year 2002 and 2003 for our offender program and the future of the no-suspect casework program.

This first slide is a basic geographic representation of all the states participating in our fiscal year 2001 convicted offender DNA backlog reduction program. With this program, NIJ used, based on the advice of the DNA Commission, allocate a $50 per sample estimate for prices for paying for DNA analysis. And we had states apply directly to NIJ for assistance, and we took the number of samples that they requested assistance for and multiplied times $50 a sample and awarded funding.

And for this program, there were 21 states that applied for assistance. All 21 states were awarded what they had requested. The total funding for that was $14.4 dollars. As part of this program, we required a1 percent no-suspect casework state match, sort of to start building the other side of the database while we're providing funding to build the offender side. Because of that requirement that we had instituted, we also did receive a fair amount of no-suspect cases analyzed in response to this program.

To date, for this program, we have paid for the analysis of over 330,000 convicted offender samples for all 13 loci. And 7,900 no-suspect cases have been analyzed as a state match from the 21 states that have been participating.

From these analyses, we've managed to track the generation of 800 hits because of this program. And at this time all but four of the 21 states have completed the analysis of their offender samples for which we awarded funding and the no-suspect casework. It's only on four states that are currently progressing with this program.

I'd like to take a moment to just give you two examples of the successes of this program. Granted there are many. But two examples would be - from North Carolina, Mark illustrated earlier that they had 25 hits as a result of this program. One of the important facts related to those hits is that 50 percent of those hits were two rape cases. Thirty-one percent of those hits were to B&E, breaking and enterings. Eight percent of those hits were to homicides. And 11 percent were to other crimes.

So, again, that shows you that you're solving violent crimes with these analyses. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I just want to make that point.

Another example would be Ohio. Ohio had 36 hits as a result of this program. Sixty-seven percent of their hits were related to rape cases. Seventeen percent were to homicide and the last 16 percent was B&E or other types of crimes.

So, again, the bottom line is that we are solving violent crimes with these - and property crimes with these hits.

Our 2001 program we structured a little bit differently. And as a result, we were managed to generate a cost savings and make our program dollars go further. With this program, we had set up cooperative agreements with six vendor laboratories and allowed states to request assistance from NIJ with those laboratories, with those vendor laboratories.

And, in essence, what this did is it put a lot of paperwork on NIJ and the vendors, but the states and those of you who applied know that you only had to fill out basically three- to four-page document and fill out one page. So that really reduced the amount of work that you are already required to do in your environment. So we thought that was a plus.

And our cost savings was about 30 percent from our previous years' programs. So we think that's pretty significant. And 24 states did request assistance, all of which 22 of those requested outsource assistance, and as you heard earlier, both George Herrin and Mark Nelson's laboratory requested funding for in-house analysis.

So, again, we awarded everyone that requested assistance for a total of $6 million. And we believe that the drop off in funding was due to the fact that a lot of folks were making efficient uses of our money in the 2000 and I didn't necessarily need the extra funding at that time at 2001. And, also, legislators weren't expanding their statutes for collection as quickly as we thought they would. But, however, with what Tim Schellberg had presented, we think they're getting right back on track and we would anticipate a lot of legislative expansions this year.

With this program, we will have a total of 170,000 convicted offender samples analyzed. And as a state match, again, we had the 1 percent no-suspect case where it state matched. There will be 1,700 no-suspect cases that the states do combined to our 170,000 samples.

To date, with this program, 15,000 samples have been completed for all 13 loci and 2,000 no-suspect cases have already been completed. A large number of those no-suspect cases are because the active outsourcing that the State of New York or the City of New York has been doing, and they been contributing those cases, the state match cases for us.

Now, to discuss our no-suspect casework program of 2001, this program, really, it started out as a general program so we could allow states to tell us what helps you. Tell us what we can do to help you. And we put some guidelines in there to help spur some thought on how to prioritize if that's what you like to do or how to request money, things you could do and you might want to stay away from.

And as a result - well, I guess I should state that we had $15.3 million for this program when we launched it in August, this past August. It was originally supposed to close on September 28th. Due to the events of 911, it's actually postponed two more months and supposed to close on November 28, which it did. But during that time frame, we also received our fiscal year 2002 appropriation which dumped an additional $20 million in funding to this program. So, in essence, what started out as $15.3 million a program is actually a $35.3 program at this time.

We did receive 27 applications for assistance under this program. And our review panels have met and reviewed all of the proposals. During the next two weeks we will be receiving consensus back - consensus reviews back from the review panels. And at that time we may be available to contact states to discuss specific items with them.

Let's see. With this program, I want to note that we encouraged all aspects of law enforcement to participate. We offered overtime. Granted we can't fund direct personnel, but we can fund overtime. We offered overtime for prosecutors, for law enforcement agents, investigators, lab personnel, police agencies. You could hire consultants or contractors to come in and help do your DNA analysis. So we were trying to be as flexible as possible.

And one of the high points I think for some of the states is that there's no state match at this time associated with this program. Since we're building the offender side currently, we did not put a state match on this program.

And to address our convicted offender program for 2002, we currently have $26 million in appropriated funding - well, combined with the asset forfeiture funding. Then we plan on opening that solicitation this summer. We believe that it's going to be very similar to the 2001 program. There will be some minor internal changes which will basically be invisible to you guys. It'll involve us possibly using something called the "GSA Schedule."

We believe that this program is really innovated and it's involving as the community evolves and as we can figure out better ways to leverage our funding and to help make things easier for the states who ultimately are responsible for all this data.

So hopefully it'll be, you know, a one- to four-page document, again, this year for you to fill out, and basically taking the paperwork stress out of your life and letting NIJ and the vendors deal with that directly. For O3, there has been a request for $15 million in funding to continue this program.

And all 50 states and several territories are eligible to apply. This funding in this program is regulated by the DNA Elimination Act of 2000. So all the statutes that are within that act apply to the funding and how we administer this funding.

And finally to finish with the future of our no-suspect casework program, we currently have a request for $25 million in appropriations for 2003. And for those of you not familiar with the federal fiscal year, our Federal O3 will start October 1. All fifty states will be able to apply in several territories, and we anticipate this program to evolve and to change maybe like the offender program did.

So if we can stay in constant communication with the community, we can know how to evolve with the community and make this program efficient for everyone.

And that's about it.

MR. SCHMITT: And we'll address our numbers in the upcoming roundtable, but are there any burning questions that you want to put specifically to one of these four folks at this point?

Dean?

MR. GIALAMAS: I just have a quick question about federal funding. And this actually goes to anyone at NIJ. It's my understanding that as a local agency I would be ineligible for applying for federal funding unless our state actually participated in the program.

And the question is: Is there any thought from NIJ to extend that to other agencies? And I only raise that because our backlogs and our crime rate actually in LA are pretty similar, if not greater than some states our in the country, and it's just, I guess, rather unfortunate that, you know, we couldn't be able to address it simply because my state organization has said, No, I'm not interested in the paperwork process.

MR. SCHMITT: Lisa or Glen, would you like to -

MS. FORMAN: The way that the money is appropriate dictates how we can give it out. So the appropriation identifies that these funds shall be given to states. And NIJ recognized that a lot of work was done locally and that there is a lot of autonomy in a lot of local laboratories.

But there was nothing that we could do that would change that. We checked with the Office of General Counsel. We tried to put it up through the chain that you might be able to put it up through, and there was nothing that we could do.

So what we tried to do was make a solicitation that made sure that no one was disenfranchised. But ultimately it is the state's decision if they choose not to apply then there's nothing that can be done because they ultimately would be responsible for your data - well, for a local laboratory's data.

We don't know that we came up with the perfect solution. We don't know that any changes can be made to the way that these funds are given out. But if you have other ideas about ways that would be more able to synthesize the role of the local laboratories to that of the states, we'd be happy to get them.

MR. JOHN PAUL JONES: Other questions?

John?

MR. KREBSBACH: On that line what Dean was referring to, and Lisa you're fully aware and so is John Paul and a number of other people, in New Mexico our state has never put in a grant application. It has always been the City of Albuquerque puts in the grant applications as a consortium type of thing. We pull the state kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, and they've just kind of follow along our heels in a lot of ways. That's nothing against the personnel or the people at the laboratory. It's the administration that's going on in our state for the last fifty years or so.

(Laughter.)

MR. KREBSBACH: I appreciate the way that NIJ has been able to try to word some of these things so that we've been able to continue to successfully put in these grants, particularly the most recent one on the backlog casework where it was more the responsibility of the state CODIS administrator for the states to put together a package, if you will, a single application that involved any of the other laboratories or entities that might be interested in trying to do that. Of course, I don't know how California's structure is, but that allowed us, and I'm sure it may have allowed some other entities, to be involved in a process where in the past they may not have been able to or at least not as directly able to put in their requests for the needs that they have.

So I appreciate that from my perspective. Maybe I'm greedy. I don't know. But I just know that had we not had those opportunities and that mechanism, we'd still be doing enzymes and ABL.

MR. JOHN PAUL JONES: Tom?

MR. GEDE: Can I ask Lisa how is your language - when you make a request, is that what shows up in the authorization and you have no impact on the appropriations bill or what does the DOJ do -

MR. SCHMITT: Somebody who sat on the other side of the city, I guess, the first seven years and saw the sausages being made. It's a combination. I mean, there are times when the appropriators will ask the Department how they would like something structured. More often than not when something comes from whether authorizers or appropriators they just make it up on their own.

And that's often because somebody, one of you folks or consortium of folks or somebody else has gotten in their ear and said, Hey, this is what you ought to do. And so all of a sudden it just magically appears in the Approps (sic) Bill and then staff at Justice go, Oh, I guess we have to do this year.

I mean, it really sometimes - it often is that awkward a process. This coming year the money will be given out under the statutory authority of the DNA backlog and elimination act, which is something that we wrote from scratch with at the impetus of a lots of folks in this room after hearing - there was testimony, there was discussion on both sides, the bipartisan bill. It was the way legislation really ought to be crafted then often isn't.

But I will confess that it says, States may apply. That was a conscious decision made by the members of Congress at the time. It reflected kind of the political philosophical view of the people who were driving it, mostly Congressman McCollum on this point, that, you know, we live in a representative democracy and we should - and the federal government should defer to the state elected officials.

And if the state-elected officials don't think that the local unit of government's needs are that important, then they may be wrong, but we federal officials shouldn't be second-guessing them and that there needs to be some education happen by the local labs of the state officials so that they realize how important this issue is and they'll then go to bat for you.

I realized that that is a somewhat idealistic pie-in-the-sky notion. But we had to make a policy call. We decided to, you know, go and draft this statute based on what the philosophy was.

Now, clearly though, if after two or three years it's not working, then it's time to make a change. And it may be that after a year or two of this or maybe now. You know, John will want to go to the guys in New Mexico and say, You know, Help me. And if they won't, then he goes to his congressman and senator and says, Please help me by fixing the statute. Especially if there's money left over that we haven't given out, that's a really good evidence that the system isn't as sufficient as it should be and it ought to be changed.

Some of you may know that there's a proposal now to amend the Forensic Science Improvement Act to allow units of government to apply for those grants. It's the same sort of request by local units who got to a member who's interested in supporting that, and perhaps you can make that happen as well. But that's kind of the evolution.

One is an awkward process. One is a more well thought out. Neither of them fixes your problem, but at least it may give you some comfort to know that with respect to the statute coming out this year, the policy options were weighed and considered and they selected an approach that wasn't maybe what you wanted to be.

Tom?

MR. GEDE: Well, it's time for a change or considering a change. Is there a way in which maybe, we, as a group ought to think about more concerted action? I'm thinking, as Susan mentioned, Phoenix has its own lobbyists -

MR. SCHMITT: Right.

MR. GEDE: - in Washington D.C., but Albuquerque might not but LA does. And so it's sort of helter-skelter ad hoc? When it hits The Hill, is there maybe something that we can do to help you-all when it comes time to coming up with a concerted plan that helps both the locals and the states?

MS. HART: Well, I think - obviously one of the things that the Attorney General has asked NIJ to do is to provide recommendations as to how we can best use the money that's out there. And the people are very interested in getting the best bang for the buck.

So if there's some impediment to getting the best bang for the buck, I think it's on us to raise that and suggest that there needs to be more flexibility if that's the consensus of the people here in this room. And having come from the City of Philadelphia where we forever were making that complaint that, you know, when you're the largest city with all of the crime and we weren't getting the money from the State, I'm certainly very sympathetic to that point of view.

One other thing I'd like to just respond or make a comment on something you said earlier, Paul, about the need for kind of statistical studies about the various benefits on this. We're thinking very much alike.

One of the things that I don't think that we have been particularly good at is making the case for legislatures about why they should invest in forensics and labs. And part of that means not just having anecdotal cases in saying, you know, we solved this case and we prevented this crime and we put this person away. It's specifically showing the kinds of hit rates you get and the public safety benefits or the cost benefits that you have from that.

So we've actually set aside money this year to try and undertake that kind of study. Because ultimately for my way of thinking, if we're talking about capacity-building, we have to give people out in the state and local governments the tools that they can then use to go to their legislatures and say, It really it worth you putting the money here in support of this.

MR. SCHMITT: And I'll make one other point in follow-up to the question. It was always easier for me as a staffer to hear from one group that represented a large spectrum of a particular audience rather than to hear from 15 guys coming in, or gals, at different times on a subject.

There's the consortium of forensic science organizations which I think would be a very good vehicle by which to speak as a group to Congress on this point.

Other burning questions for this panel?

Carl?

MR. SELAVKA: I just wanted to raise one point. Several times, and Paul brought it up also, the need for training for forensic scientists as opposed to foundational education is one that the NIJ is sponsoring through the technical working group on forensic science education and training separately from this group.

And I wouldn't dissuade us from talking about it. I would just say this group should support the efforts of TWGED. And more importantly, if we don't design outcome standards for what a DNA examiner or a criminalist looks like and hold the programs of training to them, we will end up with a mishmash. You can't have one training center putting out people with a certain kind and another training center just doing it differently.

MR. SCHMITT: Right.

MR. SELAVKA: We've got to have outcome standards. So we'll be pushing for that in TWGED and I hope this group will sponsor that as well.